↓ Skip to main content

Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exceptions to the rule of informed consent for research with an intervention
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0092-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Rebers, Neil K. Aaronson, Flora E. van Leeuwen, Marjanka K. Schmidt

Abstract

In specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent. Here, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy. We identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures. The reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 168 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 17%
Student > Master 28 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Researcher 15 9%
Professor 9 5%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 39 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Psychology 14 8%
Engineering 6 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 43 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2022.
All research outputs
#4,591,492
of 25,027,753 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#474
of 1,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,227
of 408,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,027,753 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 408,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.